Israel and the US

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

He made a liar out of me with this false narrative I was peddling. Actually I made a liar of myself for not being more skeptical or objective. But here was a democratically elected Israeli leader who could barely bring himself to accept a Palestinian state even in principle.

---

history made a liar out of you well before
not like what youre describing is anything new:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin
Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.

Israel will not transfer Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District to any foreign sovereign authority, [because] of the historic right of our nation to this land, [and] the needs of our national security, which demand a capability to defend our State and the lives of our citizens.

They are beasts walking on two legs.
On terrorists, in a speech to the Knesset (24 June 1982), quoted in "Begin and the 'Beasts" ivy Amnon Kapeliouk, in The New Statesman (25 June 1982); some accounts claim that Begin was referring to Palestinians in general, others that he refers only to Palestinian terrorists who target children within Israel.

keep in mind that this was being said by someone who was dabbling in terrorism himself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menache...sh_underground

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muh_muh

history made a liar out of you well before
not like what youre describing is anything new:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Menachem_Begin
Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever.

Israel will not transfer Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza District to any foreign sovereign authority, [because] of the historic right of our nation to this land, [and] the needs of our national security, which demand a capability to defend our State and the lives of our citizens.

They are beasts walking on two legs.
On terrorists, in a speech to the Knesset (24 June 1982), quoted in "Begin and the 'Beasts" ivy Amnon Kapeliouk, in The New Statesman (25 June 1982); some accounts claim that Begin was referring to Palestinians in general, others that he refers only to Palestinian terrorists who target children within Israel.

keep in mind that this was being said by someone who was dabbling in terrorism himself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menache...sh_underground

---

I know of Begin's position and of the positions of the early Zionists. I was talking about more recent overtures by the government including the Camp David talks where it seemed the Israelis under Barak's leadership were willing to not only accept Palestinian state in principle but also try to make it happen. This was very different from Begin's or Netanyahu's stance on the issue. I also was encouraged by Rabin's apparent willingness to negotiate though not by what happened to him.

I thought Israel's position had evolved a great deal on the idea of a Palestinian state and the steps they were willing to take to accomplish that.

There's really no need to be confrontational. I was saying that I had a misconception, as someone who has friends and family in Israel, and I think it was in good faith though not perfectly informed (I was about 20 at the time). It just shows that sometimes a person's connection to an issue can influence their position in the short-term though I'm sure you know that;.

"Every attempt [by the State of Israel] to keep hold of this area [the West Bank and Gaza] as one political entity leads, necessarily, to either a nondemocratic or a non-Jewish state. Because if the Palestinians vote, then it is a binational state, and if they don’t vote it is an apartheid state".

I find this statement by Barak for instance to be encouraging. Here he is acknowledging that if they try to hold onto the territories they do not have the state of Israel but a binational state. If they try to control the Palestinians without giving them political rights then they perpetuate an injustice.

We can all say after the fact that he did not do enough, but compared to Begin and compared to Netanyahu, the man at least seemed to believe creating a Palestinian state was a necessary endeavor. I don't really blame him for talking about the injustices in terms of how it would effect Israel because afterall, when people commit injustices it usually hurts the perpetrators indirectly. As we were talking about the Munich massacre. It goes without saying that this was a harmful blow to Israel and Israelis but it was very bad for the Palestinian movement internationally as well.

I piss on Zionist

Avraham Burg put it very neatly nearly 10 years ago:-

"Do you want democracy? No problem. Either abandon the greater land of Israel, to the last settlement and outpost, or give full citizenship and voting rights to everyone, including Arabs. The result, of course, will be that those who did not want a Palestinian state alongside us will have one in our midst, via the ballot box. The prime minister should present the choices forthrightly: Jewish racism or democracy. Settlements, or hope for both peoples."
(Avraham Burg, 15 September 2003)

Israel cannot have it both ways. Which shall it be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Very interesting. I am taking down this post for my reference. It puts a lie to another narrative of mine. Because I strongly believe Israel should be a "Jewish state" but open to people of all backgrounds, only reflecting a Jewish culture while maintaining secular institutions, it is too easy to impute it to the Israelis. For me it is the only thing that makes sense. Anyhow, facts trump stories.

I am familiar with Gideon Levy, but have not seen this article so thank you. And as your post indicates, that they have a sort of fractured with parties gaining power with little total support it makes generalizing very difficult.

---

Israel is an intriguing country, and it is a pity that it tends to be judged by its politics; I wonder what would happen if we judged every other state in the same way.

I cannot agree with your belief that it should be a 'Jewish state' because that to me is part of the problem inherent in all forms of nationalism, and in Israel in particular -what happens to those people who are not of the 'elected' group in charge? For example, when Turkey was created in 1923, it may have been the moment when people calling themselves Turks were able to throw off the cloak of Ottoman Imperial rule and re-define their identity -and many of the people who did take Turkish nationality were not 'ethnic Turks' at all, but originally migrants from Europe who had lost their homes in places like Bosnia in the late 19th century. But why would an Ottoman Armenian, an Ottoman Greek Orthodox, an Ottoman Jew, an Ottoman Arab, an Ottoman Kurd want to be defned as a 'Turk' when clearly they were not?

What would happen, for example, if the USA was to become, officially, a Christian state? The UK is a Christian State, the Queen is the head of state and head of the Church of England, but there are a lot of people who want to dis-establish the Church of England for preciely this reason, just as there are those who want to retain it as the 'last vestige' of English identity -and yes, this is English, not Scots or Welsh or (Northern) Irish.

One of the key problems that accompanied the creation of Israel was precisely this sense that there were people who belonged, and those who did not. It was not based on any precise political geography derived from the Biblical record, because that record is imprecise. Moreover, the land that was allocated to the Jewish Agency by the UN Partition Plan of 1947 was less than the land that the war of 1948 secured for Israel, and this other sense, that Israel is a state with expansionary ambitions can be found in the diaries and memoirs of Ben-Gurion as well as more contemporary politicians. You could thus argue that at the very moment when the UN made the acquisition of territory by force illegal, the creation of Israel did precisely that -but then Israel has treated the UN with contempt since 1947 anyway.

On this basis, 'Eretz Israel' if applied in its full practical sense, is a recipe for disaster, given that parts of Jordan that were biblical Moab, Gilead and Ammon could in theory be part of such an Israel. That Israel has not been assiduous in its application of the law to all citizens has been a chronic complaint of the non-Jews who, after all, have lived in cities like Jerusalem and Bethlehem for over a thousand years, as if that didn't matter. Even if you believe that the Balfour Declaration of 1917 is a crucial text in the founding of Israel, the governments of Israel have not met its injunction when it says that it supports the proposal for a 'National home for the Jewish people...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...etc'.

There were people in Palestine in 1948 who woke up one day and were expected to become citizens of a 'Jewish state', but they were never asked if they wanted it, merely given a choice: take Israeli citizenship, or go away. That is no way to organise a state. At some point you reach the same conclusion that has been shown to fail again and again: France pour les Francais; A Turkish state for the Turkish people; an Aryan State for the Aryan people; A land for people for a people without land. States do not survive by being exlusive, but by being inclusive; and all of the states just referred to have been unable to define what it is to be French, Turkish, German/Aryan or Israeli, and when laws were drawn up to make the attempt it (has) caused endless woe -just ask any Kurd born in this thing called 'Turkey'.

Right now, the lack of trust between the two blocs (Israelis and Arabs) runs so deep there is no hope of a major breakthrough, while within the Palestinian communities there are the perennial divisions that have obstructed their politics since the Ottoman reforms of the mid-19th century. Mahmoud Abbas if he had the opportunity would sell out the Palestinians in an even more shameful way than Arafat. Obama has little to achieve in this scenario, and with the long term implications of the Arab Spring still so uncertain, there are too many jangling nerves for real progress to be made, because it must be based on a dialogue, and that is what is not taking place.

I recall reading various different options were once considered as a "Jewish" homeland - including somewhere in Africa and in Northern Russia where a small Jewish settlement was establishde with the notion of it become the core of a homeland.

The trouble with historical claims to any land is at what point in history do you say "this is the starting point'. As Stavros pointed out parts of Moab, Gilead ad Ammon could in theory be part of Israel. Once you start referencing the Bible as a key element of your argument you have profound problems.

And ttake a wider view of the region and many of the resent day states are the result of Anglo-French machinations in the closing stages of World War One and teh immediate aftermath - the Sykes-Picot agreement which created Iraq and Syria broadly along their present borders, the promises made and betrayed to the Arabs that they would get some form of self determination as as a result of the Arab uprising which was a key element in the overthrow of the Turks in "Arabia" and so on.... a total mess.

About Abu Mazen, I think that Stavros is adopting a somewhat pro-Hamas line. But Hamas are a significant barrier to peace because of their refusal to renounce their belief in the destruction of any idea of Israel. And it will be interesting to find out how big a hand Iran has in fomenting the ongoing trouble from Gaza.

The problem truly remains profound and seemingly intractable. But the evolution of the Arab spring might change that - if the islamist elements across the region gain the upper hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I cannot agree with your belief that it should be a 'Jewish state' because that to me is part of the problem inherent in all forms of nationalism, and in Israel in particular -what happens to those people who are not of the 'elected' group in charge? For example, when Turkey was created in 1923, it may have been the moment when people calling themselves Turks were able to throw off the cloak of Ottoman Imperial rule and re-define their identity -and many of the people who did take Turkish nationality were not 'ethnic Turks' at all, but originally migrants from Europe who had lost their homes in places like Bosnia in the late 19th century. But why would an Ottoman Armenian, an Ottoman Greek Orthodox, an Ottoman Jew, an Ottoman Arab, an Ottoman Kurd want to be defned as a 'Turk' when clearly they were not?

What would happen, for example, if the USA was to become, officially, a Christian state? The UK is a Christian State, the Queen is the head of state and head of the Church of England, but there are a lot of people who want to dis-establish the Church of England for preciely this reason, just as there are those who want to retain it as the 'last vestige' of English identity -and yes, this is English, not Scots or Welsh or (Northern) Irish.

---

I suppose it depends what is meant by Jewish state. Why would a Jew or a Palestinian want to be defined as British for instance if naturalized through the immigration process? Yet there are many people in Britain who do not spring from Anglo-Saxon roots. It is an unavoidable thing that each state has a character, a set of traditions, and a culture in some way influenced by its founders. When a young Arab kid in England reads Shakespeare as part of his school curriculum, is it possible he does not feel the same national pride that Anglo-Saxon Britons feel? Or about the battle of Agincourt? On this latter point, might he not say, nobody of my background was there.

When you define a nation of people, they can be identified based on the sharing of a common language, a common culture, and sometimes a common religion. As a result, I would think that the creation of a Palestinian state would create just as much of an assimilation issue for Jewish individuals who do not share that heritage or that culture. If religion were an important part of governance, as it is in many states, officially sanctioned, then the problem would be magnified.

So, the question is, if Jewish is meant in a sense to define a nation of Jewish people, then to me it's not really different from a Palestinian state based on the customs of Palestinians, with street signs in Arabic etc. I know it is a subject of some debate whether the Jewish people are a nation, and particularly whether they are a nation sans religion. I think it is so. The only way it would seem to me that a Palestinian state based on Palestinian customs would be inviting to non-Palestinians would be if it reflects a universal culture. What if a Palestinian state flag for instance had a crucifix, a star of David, and the star and crescent? I cannot imagine that they will be expected not to reflect their customs, and if they do, how might that make those individuals feel who have citizenship but no shared history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

There were people in Palestine in 1948 who woke up one day and were expected to become citizens of a 'Jewish state', but they were never asked if they wanted it, merely given a choice: take Israeli citizenship, or go away. That is no way to organise a state. At some point you reach the same conclusion that has been shown to fail again and again: France pour les Francais; A Turkish state for the Turkish people; an Aryan State for the Aryan people; A land for people for a people without land. States do not survive by being exlusive, but by being inclusive; and all of the states just referred to have been unable to define what it is to be French, Turkish, German/Aryan or Israeli, and when laws were drawn up to make the attempt it (has) caused endless woe -just ask any Kurd born in this thing called 'Turkey'.
.

---

I understand your point better now. One of the problems was that the state that had this defined character already had inhabitants in it who were not part of that group. But if you look at your examples for instance. Aryan state for the Aryan people. If you asked Jewish people living in Germany whether they would have minded a certain amount of national pride, I'm sure they would have said no. But then, ask them after the Nuremberg Laws when it was illegal for them to marry Aryans, or after 1945 and it would have been much different.

In order for a country to be exclusive it must have laws making it so. Israel does not have those laws. Per their right of return, being Jewish is a sufficient but not necessary condition for citizenship. And the laws on the books do not provide different rights for non-Jews as for Jews. You may be right that it is a slippery slope, where national pride becomes subordination of the alien, but I think all of the countries you mentioned have a certain culture reflected in their national identity. It just so happens that Jewish also doubles as a religious identity. Yet religion seems to play a much smaller part in the governance of Israel than it does in Iran, where the Ayatollah is the Supreme Leader of the country. And there are religious minorities in Iran, and we're always reminded by the government there how happy they are:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

I recall reading various different options were once considered as a "Jewish" homeland - including somewhere in Africa and in Northern Russia where a small Jewish settlement was establishde with the notion of it become the core of a homeland.

The trouble with historical claims to any land is at what point in history do you say "this is the starting point'. As Stavros pointed out parts of Moab, Gilead ad Ammon could in theory be part of Israel. Once you start referencing the Bible as a key element of your argument you have profound problems.

And ttake a wider view of the region and many of the resent day states are the result of Anglo-French machinations in the closing stages of World War One and teh immediate aftermath - the Sykes-Picot agreement which created Iraq and Syria broadly along their present borders, the promises made and betrayed to the Arabs that they would get some form of self determination as as a result of the Arab uprising which was a key element in the overthrow of the Turks in "Arabia" and so on.... a total mess.

About Abu Mazen, I think that Stavros is adopting a somewhat pro-Hamas line. But Hamas are a significant barrier to peace because of their refusal to renounce their belief in the destruction of any idea of Israel. And it will be interesting to find out how big a hand Iran has in fomenting the ongoing trouble from Gaza.

The problem truly remains profound and seemingly intractable. But the evolution of the Arab spring might change that - if the islamist elements across the region gain the upper hand.

---

First of all, Herzl considered a 'Jewish State' in Uganda, and also within Argentina.
Second, the division of the Ottoman lands was agreed in the 'Secret treaties' which initially awarded pieces of the Ottoman Empire to Britain, France, Italy and Russia, a sequence that began in 1915 and continued that year with the notorious correspondence that was initiated by the Sharif of Mecca, the Hashemite Hussein ibn Ali and the High Commissioner in Cairo, Sir Henry MacMahon. This traded the military engagement of the Ottoman forces by his Arab warriors in exchange for an independent Arab state whose vague boundaries appeared to stretch from Hama and Homs in present-day Syria to the Hejaz, the western coastal province of Saudi Arabia- it is not clear if it included present-day Israel/Palestine: the Arabs say it did, the British say it did not. Sykes-Picot came in 1916 and the Balfour Declaration in 1917.

These secret treaties were published -and repdudiated- by the Bolsheviks in 1918, much to the embarrassment of the British and the French, and were in any case subject to revision first at the conference in San Remo in 1920, and in the British case in Cairo in 1921 which created Transjordan and Iraq as respectively, a Hashemite Emirate and Kingdom. Mosul, which in Sykes-Picot was to have been in French mandated Syrian territory, was given away over breakfast by the foreign minister Berthelot, who allegedly had such a bad hangover he agreed to anything the British proposed so he could go back to bed. They have rued that transfer ever since, as it is one of the most prolific oil-bearing regions in Iraq.
Third, I am not a supporter of Hamas, but you have to ask pertinent questions about the fate of the settlements in the Occupied West Bank, and the Palestinians 'right of return' rather than just throw in the towel and effectively surrender. In addition, the charter of Hamas is not much different from Clause 4 of the old Labour Party, and Hamas have on more than one occasion over the years offered free and open negotiations with the Israelis. Not much different from the Provisional IRA claiming they want a United Ireland;
However, YES, the violence is counter-productive, and if Hamas want to be taken seriously they should call a truce and mean it. In recent months, incidentally, their relationship with Iran has cooled, it was always an odd one anyway.
Mahmoud Abbas is part of that whole PLO set-up which in the early 1970s was out of touch with the average Palestinian on the West Bank and in Gaza, and which was terrified of losing its 'consituents' to local politicians, and moved to sideline them, as they did with Haidar Abdul Shafi and Hanan Ashrawi in 1990-91, to the detriment of the cause.